How to Conduct Frequent Compliance Reviews?
A Chief Information Security Officer would like to conduct frequent, detailed reviews of systems and procedures to track compliance objectives. Which of the following will be the best method to achieve this objective?
Community Votes
100% of anonymous learners picked answer C. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
This question tests your ability to distinguish between continuous compliance monitoring and periodic security assessments, often trapping candidates who confuse auditing with penetration testing or vulnerability scanning.
Internal auditing is the most effective method for conducting frequent, detailed reviews of systems and procedures to track compliance objectives. The community consensus emphasizes matching exam keywords like "frequent" and "compliance" to the correct governance control.
Candidates frequently choose penetration testing or vulnerability scans because they are well-known security activities, but these focus on technical flaws rather than comprehensive procedural compliance and are not conducted frequently enough for ongoing tracking.
Community Discussion (3 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Internal auditing provides a structured, repeatable framework for evaluating both technical systems and administrative procedures against established compliance standards. Because it can be scheduled regularly, it perfectly aligns with the requirement for frequent, detailed reviews to continuously track compliance objectives. Unlike external assessments, internal audits offer direct organizational insight without the logistical delays of third-party coordination.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Third-party attestation involves external validation and is typically performed annually or during specific contract cycles, making it unsuitable for frequent reviews. Penetration testing and vulnerability scans are technically focused assessments designed to identify exploitable weaknesses, not to evaluate broad compliance procedures or policy adherence. Additionally, neither pen testing nor vuln scanning is intended for routine compliance tracking due to their intrusive nature and limited scope regarding administrative controls.Community Comment Notes
Users consistently highlight the importance of parsing adjectives in the prompt, specifically noting that "frequent" immediately eliminates third-party and pen testing options. Comment [1] correctly points out that only internal auditing covers all stated objectives while meeting the frequency requirement. The consensus reinforces that SY0-701 heavily tests keyword association within GRC scenarios.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
Always underline action verbs and frequency modifiers in SY0-701 questions, as they directly dictate the correct control type. Match "frequent/comprehensive/procedural" to internal audits, and reserve pen tests or vuln scans for questions emphasizing "exploit identification" or "attack simulation."
Related Analysis
Practice All SY0-701 Questions
Access 100 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full SY0-701 Practice Test →